fill_tank

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by stating 'Fetch.' The description adds value by specifying the returned content (identity, project knowledge, recent outputs), going beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first covers action and returns, the second covers usage. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant. It is very concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it fetches, when to use it, and expected returns. No significant gaps are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains the 'project' parameter well. The description reinforces its role by mentioning 'specific project' and 'switch projects,' but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('CacheTank context'), and the scope ('for a specific project'). It also lists the returned data (identity, active project knowledge, recent outputs), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool 'cache_it'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly notes when to use the tool: 'when you need to refresh context or switch projects mid-conversation.' While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the provided context is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.